I just read something in Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament?" that caught my eye. Here's the relevant text:
"These revisions [to the original Q sayings] were ingenious. Their first move was to introduce the figure of John and let HIM step forth first as a prophet of judgment and preacher of repentance. Their second move was to have John predict a certain "coming one" would would separate the wheat fromt he chaff on "his treshing floor," wherever and whenever that might be."
In other words, after the Q Jesus movement had undergone a rough period, they changed their image to one of apocalypticism. To legitimate this new view of Jesus (who had until then just been a teacher of Cynic-like wisdom teaching about the Kingdom of God, i.e. networking) the editors introduced John the Baptist so as to provide a precedent for the new flavour. It is also the scholarly opinion that while John represented the ascetic (fakir-type?), Jesus is regarded as more of a hedonist (not following the usual Jewish rules of ritual purity).
Now, here are some excerpts from Laura's Leonardo article:
1. "Leonardo has transformed John, the alleged precursor of Christ, from a gaunt ascetic to what can only be said to be almost a hermaprhodite with soft, womanly flesh, glancing out of the painting with a look that is not renunciation, but sly mystery and devious invitation with finger pointing heavenward." [These traits were purposefully used to tell us something about John. Is Leonardo also saying something about asceticism? That it is self-indulgent?]
2. [In Virgin of The Rocks, Version One, Louvre, 1483] "Notice the pointing finger of contempt from the Angel to John the Baptist."
3. "Is the implication [of the hand imagery related to picking up bread before betrayal] that John the Baptist, in the Virgin of the rocks, was a sort of "Judas?""
Also, from http://www.cassiopaea.org/Rennes-le-Chateau/rennes29.html:
"If [Raynaldus] had reported that the Cathars worshipped John the Baptist as the true Christ that also would have been sufficiently damning. However, his version of what they believed was that 1) John the Baptist represented a demon and, and that 2) there was a "bad man" crucified in Jerusalem, who was connected to Mary Magdalene, but that it wasn't the "real" Jesus. So Raynaldus probably wasn't making it up. Clearly, the beliefs of the Cathars were something other than an idea that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, or that Jesus and Mary had children together, contrary to what present day expositors of "occult secrets of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail" would have us believe."
So, anyone have any ideas on what really happened?
"These revisions [to the original Q sayings] were ingenious. Their first move was to introduce the figure of John and let HIM step forth first as a prophet of judgment and preacher of repentance. Their second move was to have John predict a certain "coming one" would would separate the wheat fromt he chaff on "his treshing floor," wherever and whenever that might be."
In other words, after the Q Jesus movement had undergone a rough period, they changed their image to one of apocalypticism. To legitimate this new view of Jesus (who had until then just been a teacher of Cynic-like wisdom teaching about the Kingdom of God, i.e. networking) the editors introduced John the Baptist so as to provide a precedent for the new flavour. It is also the scholarly opinion that while John represented the ascetic (fakir-type?), Jesus is regarded as more of a hedonist (not following the usual Jewish rules of ritual purity).
Now, here are some excerpts from Laura's Leonardo article:
1. "Leonardo has transformed John, the alleged precursor of Christ, from a gaunt ascetic to what can only be said to be almost a hermaprhodite with soft, womanly flesh, glancing out of the painting with a look that is not renunciation, but sly mystery and devious invitation with finger pointing heavenward." [These traits were purposefully used to tell us something about John. Is Leonardo also saying something about asceticism? That it is self-indulgent?]
2. [In Virgin of The Rocks, Version One, Louvre, 1483] "Notice the pointing finger of contempt from the Angel to John the Baptist."
3. "Is the implication [of the hand imagery related to picking up bread before betrayal] that John the Baptist, in the Virgin of the rocks, was a sort of "Judas?""
Also, from http://www.cassiopaea.org/Rennes-le-Chateau/rennes29.html:
"If [Raynaldus] had reported that the Cathars worshipped John the Baptist as the true Christ that also would have been sufficiently damning. However, his version of what they believed was that 1) John the Baptist represented a demon and, and that 2) there was a "bad man" crucified in Jerusalem, who was connected to Mary Magdalene, but that it wasn't the "real" Jesus. So Raynaldus probably wasn't making it up. Clearly, the beliefs of the Cathars were something other than an idea that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, or that Jesus and Mary had children together, contrary to what present day expositors of "occult secrets of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail" would have us believe."
So, anyone have any ideas on what really happened?